Not to put word's in Charles' mouth either, but I suspect that he'd prefer they were not BATFE controlled beyond whatever controls are already in place for regular firearms. I don't think suppressors should be controlled at all. They are simply a matter of good manners.

• Give me Liberty or I'll get up and get it myself.
• I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.
• My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.
• Independent Minarchist.

I suspect most of us know what NFA items are. The specificity he was asking about is in regards to "his stance"? What, exactly, are you asking?

Definition of stance (n)
Bing Dictionary
stance[ stanss ]
attitude toward something: an attitude or view that somebody takes about something
I want to know if he is for or against private ownership of NFA!

I'm certainly not gonna vote for another NRA Board member that is like old Joaquin Jackson just because he's from Texas.

"The Second Amendment is absolute...If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

To the OP, other members here have asked legitimate questions of you seeking clarification and specificity of your original question. You've responded with what could best be described as mild annoyance/condescension. Not sure what is your aim, but I'll rephrase again for the general benefit.

Asking someone's "stance" on "NFA" is broad and open ended, much like a poorly constructed "question" from a lazy TV news reporter who says merely "talk about X" as if that's a question.

Are you asking if he supports NFA as is? Are you asking if he supports changes to NFA making it either more or less restrictive? Are you asking generally if he supports the very idea of civilian ownership of NFA items (based on your reference to Joaquin Jackson I'm wondering if this is the point of your question)?

Anyway, Charles can speak for himself but the follow up questions asking you for clarification/specificity were made in good faith and deserve better than your mildly condescending answers.

anygunanywhere wrote:You might get a response sooner if you send him a PM.

Anygunanywhere

Was hoping for more of a response in an open forum. PM can't be seen by all.

Just offering a suggestion, Mr. Baboon.

Anygunanywhere

"The Second Amendment is absolute...If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

As others have noted, your question is very broad, so my response will have to be broad as well.

I think regulating the possession of a tool rather than the misuse of that tool is both ineffective and an affront to a free society.

I wish the NFA had never been passed and I wish it would be repealed. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen in my lifetime, if at all. I also would like to see Tex. Penal Code Chp. 46 repealed and focus on misuse of weapons, not their mere possession. That too isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

Since the NFA isn't going to be repealed, it should be narrowed to cover only fully automatic firearms and truly destructive devices or what I call area weapons such as cannons, grenade launchers, etc. There's no reason to regulate SBRs, suppressors, etc. I also believe that the local LEO sign-off should be repealed and that no background check should be required of anyone who holds a state license to carry that is exempt from a NICS check. There should be no fee or "stamp" requirement. Transfer of NFA weapons between individuals should require no more than using an FFL and the current Form 4473 with a NICS check, or no NICS check if the transferee has a NICS-exempt carry license.